tv Public Affairs CSPAN July 24, 2013 5:00pm-8:01pm EDT
the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 69 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 69 printed in house report number 113-170, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request rise. ecorded vote shall a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 70, printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70, printed in house report number 113-170 offered by mr. nadler of ew york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a requested vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 187. the nays are 237. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 73 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 73 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.
those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
it is now in order to consider amendment number 99 in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the entleman from kansas rise? >> i offer as a designee to offer the nugent amendment. the chair: the committee will be in order to recognize a parliamentary inquiry. >> mr. chairman. point of parliamentary inquiry. can they issue an amendment on behalf of the sponsor -- the chair: please state your inquiry. mr. polis: mr. chairman, it is in order for a designee to offer an amendment on behalf of
ts sponsor on this rule? the chair: the named sponsor of an amendment may name its designee. mr. polis: point of further inquiry. does the gentleman from kansas have the formal designation of the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent? the chair: the chair has been made aware from the designee of appointing this gentleman from kansas as his designee. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 99 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, and a member opposed, each will control 7 1/2 minutes. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the amendment i offer this evening clarifies and confirms the scope of two programs that mr. snowden illegally exposed while sitting in a hotel in communist china. first, the amendment clarifies that under section 702, no u.s. citizen or person in the u.s. can be targeted. period. i say again, no u.s. person under section 702 may be targeted in any way by the united states government. while there are other specific authorities, the u.s. person may be subject to an investigation. they may not -- the u.s. may not do so under section 702. and that's what this amendment intends to clarify. the second part of the amendment clarifies section 215, also known as section 501 of fisa. the amendment clarifies that no content of communication can be stored or collected by the national aeronautics and space administration. that's no emails, no -- by the national security agency. that's no emails, no skype or
the contents may be recorded or collected by the national security agency. enough. epeat that that's the intent of this amendment. i want to make clear to everyone that contrary to the suggestions of some that the n.s.a. has not been acting outside the scope of its authorities. the metadata program is carefully designed with prayer layers of oversight by all three branches of government. this is precisely the way our government ought to operate with input from article 1 and article 2 and article 3 of the united states constitution. it's of course our duty to ensure that the n.s.a. stays within its legal bounds here in this congress and this amendment makes it perfectly clear for everyone to understand. we shouldn't mislead the american people into thinking that the n.s.a. has been acting illegally. there is perhaps no program in the united states government that is as carefully monitored in overseeing the programs this amendment attempts to clarify. to the extent that some in this chamber wish to review and provide protections for these programs, we should go through
a legislative process so the full implications and for our security are clearly understood. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman eserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: to claim the opposing time. the chair: is the gentleman rising in opposition? mr. visclosky: i rise to claim the time. the chair: is the gentleman opposed? mr. visclosky: i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman rom new york seek -- mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition. the chair: i had a feeling. sorry. the gentleman from indiana is
recognized to claim the time in opposition. you control 7 1/2 minutes. mr. visclosky: as a work in progress, mr. chair, i recognize the gentleman from new york for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: this amendment has been described as an alternative to the amendment we are considering next. it is not. this amendment restates the intentional targeting of american persons under section 702 and places into law the obama administration's current ban on collecting the contents of u.s. persons. i agree with his prohibitions but nothing to do with the current misuse of section 215 to ngage in the suspicionless american's telephone records. e section 215 is all numbers
dialed, incoming calls, but not the content of communications. therefore this amendment would have no impact whatsoever on this misuse of section 215. data reveals highly personal and sensitive information including when and how often someone calls a doctor or aclu affiliate. the government can paint the details of personal associations and activities. congress never authorized this surveil appears of citizens and it is this problem under section 215 that we need to fix right now. the amash/conyers amendment restores the collection of records and specific persons being investigated under section 215. -- mash/conyers amendment this amendment does not fix the
problem. the amash/conyers amendment does. i intend to vote in favor of it, it is imperative we vote in favor of the amash/conyers amendment, although doing no harm does not solve the problems that congressman sensenbrenner with respect to the section 215 of the patriot act. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i reserve as well. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would be happy to yield time to the gentleman from texas and would make an inquiry as to how much time he would like to consume. i would be happy to give the gentleman three minutes.
the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. thornberry: i thank the gentleman from indiana and gentleman for offering this amendment because it helps focus on what concerns most americans and it clarifies what really is and is not happening. sometimes it's a challenge for those of us on the intelligence committee to talk openly about this even the safeguards in some of these programs. but this amendment helps make it clear and reassures americans about some of the things they may have read or heard that is occurring with n.s.a. but at the same time, this amendment is not an overreaction that actually increases the danger that americans face from terrorism around the world. this amendment says clearly n.s.a. cannot acquire information for the purpose of targeting americans and it says clearly that n.s.a. may not acquire, monitor or store the communication of any american.
and the key point that members need to know is there are multiple layers of safeguards to make sure these programs operate exactly in the way that the fisa court has laid them out to operate. the intelligence committees of both the house and senate do a considerable amount of oversight. get regular reports, even if someone punches a 2 versus a 3 on their keyboard, we get a report about that. it goes so far that members of the intelligence committee can sit next to the analyst and watch what they're doing. but not just the intelligence committee, but the fisa court has oversight, the same sorts of reports. think can change the guidelines that it operates under. in addition to that there are internal inspector general monitoring of these, so you get every branch of government in making sure that the safeguards are in place and the same safeguards will be in place to
make sure that the provisions of the gentleman's amendment are followed as well. some some, however, mr. chairman, would do aware with these programs. no amount of safeguards are good for them, but they never say what would replace them or fill the gap in meeting our responsibilities to defend americans. they would just have them go away. and i guess assume that somehow or another that americans could be made safe. the truth is we have been incredibly successful and somewhat lucky since 9/11 as far as preventing further terrorist attacks on our homeland. that's because of the work of the military, intelligence professionals, law enforcement and as i say, a fair amount of luck. but these programs at n.s.a. have made a crucial contribution to that success over the last decade and it seems to me would be foolhardy to toss them away
as some would want to do. i think this amendment strikes the right approach. and i also believe, mr. chairman, the "wall street journal" makes a good point when it says the last thing congress should do is kill a program in a rush to honor the reckless claims of mr. snowden. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from indiana wish any time? the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. pompeo: i yield three minutes to the ranking member on the house intelligence committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger. the chair: the
gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ruppersberger: i rise in support of the pompeo amendment. this amendment strongly reaffirms america, privacy and security must co-exist together. this amendment states that in no
uncertain terms that the government cannot use section 702 of the fisa to intentional target an american for surveillance. this important amendment also reaffirms that the phone conversations cannot be collected through section 215 of
the patriot act. it makes the i tensions of the congress very clear. i believe the amendment makes a powerful statement that n.s.a. cannot target americans or listen to their phone calls. however, i do understand the concerns of the american people and of congress when it comes to these programs. on the house intelligence committee, we are reviewing potential ways to change the fisa act that will provide the intelligence community with the tools it needs to keep our country safe while also protecting privacy and civil liberties. we are committed to having this important discussion. however, i do have concerns about the amendment we will
debate next. it is an on-off switch of section 215 of the patriot act and will have an impact and our country will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. a planned attack on the new york city subway system was stopped because of section 215. but the amash amendment passes this authority, and it will end it. this amendment goss too far too fast on the wrong lemmingstive vehicle. we need to debate the scope of this program and we are, but this is an extreme knee-jerk reaction to the situation. this program has been authorized and re-authorized by congress and receives extensive oversight by the intelligence committee and it is a vital tool to protect our nation. remember, 9/11 happened in part because we failed to connect the dots. one of the critical tools we now have and use to connect those dots is section 215 of the patriot act.
remember, this is just phone records, just phone numbers, no conversations. i respectfully urge a no vote on the amash amendment and yes vote on the pompeo amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: i urge a no vote on the amendment. why? because it restates current law and current law has been interpreted by the administration in a way that is frankly contrary to the intent of the crafters of the patriot act. section 215 of the patriot act says that you can obtain information that is relevant to
a national security investigation. now what's happened since congress enacted that provision? it's a low bar, but under the n.s.a.'s spreppings, it's no bar because as has been widely reported, they are collecting the information about every phone call made by every american. clearly, that is not relevant to a terrorist investigation. i think it's important to note that business records that are the subject of 215 include a lot of sensitive information. what are business records? phone records? internet records? credit card records? medical records? are these things that we would voluntary give up to the government? no. they are incredibly sensitive and that's why they are being sought. i do think it is important to note that the amendment that will follow after this one doesn't end the ability of the government to pursue terrorism. we are all for that. it merely requires that the
government adhere to the law, which requires that there be relevant to a terrorist investigation. i do think -- i certainly do not challenge the motivation of the gentleman who has offered this amendment, but i do think that if you think this provides a remedy, then you're wrong. this provides a if anything leaf. we should vote against it. and i hope we will move onto the amash amendment and solve the problem today. and i thank the gentleman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i reserve. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. pompeo: i would like to correct a couple of things. it is not a if anything leaf but
things to clarify about what section 215 authorizes and section 702 authorizes. it is intended to make crystal clear the boundaries of these two important national security programs. these laws have been in place and interpreted by multiple administrations in the same way. there has been no change in this law when this president came into office and we should continue to support these programs regardless who is the commander in chief of the united states. colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has yielded his time. therefore, all time on this debate has creased. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman
request a recorded vote? >> yes, sir. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 100 printed in house report 11-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. amash: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 100 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, and a member opposed will each control 7 1/2 minutes. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i yield myself one minute. the chair:
the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. amash: we are here today for a very simple reason, to defend the fourth amendment, to defend the privacy of each and every american. as director of national intelligence has made clear, the government collects the phone records without suspicion of every single american in the united states. my amendment makes a simple but important change. it limits the government's collection of those records -- of the records to those records that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation pursuant to section 215. opponents of this amendment will use the same tactics that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of rights. fear. they'll tell you the government must violate the rights of the american people to protect us
against those who hate our freedoms. they will tell you there is no privacy in documents that are stored with a third party. tell that to the american people. tell that to our constituents back home. we are here to answer one question for the people we represent. do we oppose the suspicionless collection of every american's phone records? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 7 1/2 minutes. mr. young: i'm happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of the house intelligence committee, the gentleman from ichigan, mr. rogers.
the chair: the gentleman from smch recognized. mr. rogers: the american people, some well intentioned members in this chamber have concerns, they should be addressed. we should have time and education on what happens in the particular program of which we speak. i'll pledge to each of you today and give you my word that this fall when we do the intel authorization bill we will work to find additional privacy protections with this program that has no emails, no phone calls, no names, and no addresses. 14 federal judges have said yes, this comports with the federal constitution. 1,800 cases around the 1979 case have affirmed the underpinnings of the legalities of the case. 800. 14 judges are wrong, 00 different cases are wrong. the legislateors on both intelligence committees, republicans an democrats, are all wrong. why is it that people of both
parties came together an looked at this program at a time when our nation is under siege by those individuals who want to bring violence to the shores of the united states? because those who know it best support the program because we spend as much time on this to get it right, to make sure the oversight is right. no other program, no other program has the legislature, the judicial branch and the executive branch doing oversifingt a program like this. if we had this in the other agencies we would not have problems. and think about who we are in this body have 12 years gone by and our memories fade sod badly forgot what happened on september 11? this bill turns off a very specific program. it doesn't stop so-called spying and other things that this has been alleged to do because that's not what is happening. it's not a surveillance bill,
it's not monitoring. what happened after september 11 that we didn't know on september 10 and again, passing this amendment takes us back to september 10. afterwards we said, wow, there's a seam, a gap, somebody leading up to the september 11 attacks a terrorist overseas called a terrorist living aamongst us in the united states and we missed it because we didn't have this capability. what if we had caught it? the
good news it's not theoretical, 54 times this program stop and thwarted terrorist attack here's and in europe, saving real lives. this isn't a game. this is real. it will have a real consequence. this is hard. think about the people who came here before nuss this great body. madison, lincoln, kennedy served here. and the issues they dealt with and the politics of big and moving america forward while upholding the article 1 mandate
investigations. i've never block -- i'd never block that. all this amendment is intended ongoing to curtail the dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent americans. it does not defund the n.s.a. and it would continue to allow them to conduct full fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an actual investigation. our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrate ours commitment to ensuring that our fight against trsm and espionage follows the rule of raw and the clear intent of the statutes passed by this congress. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan.
mr. amash: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i'm happy to yield two and a half minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two and a half minutes. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman from florida, i thank the speaker. this is an important issue we're taking up today pause the number one duty of the federal government is the safety of the american people, of our constituents and of our own skin for each of us in this chamber today as we know all too well, national security is a real and present danger and something we have to take quite seriously. we can't deal in false narratives and a false narrative has emerminged that the federal government is taking in the content of americans' phone calls.
that's not true. it's not happening. false narrative occur -- has occurred that the american government is reading people's emails and thost not
true. the facts are these. the only people who have benefited if the revelation of classified information by someone who worked for this government who intentionally and unauthorized declassified some of the most sensitive national security information that we have, the only result is that those who are engaged in islamic jihad will have been benefited and those we seek to protect have not. consider this there is more in the on contained phone book that sits at home on your kitchen counter about each one of us than the information that is in the national security database that we're talking about today. your name, your address is in the phone book. your name, your address is not
in this national security database. no other nation in the world has the advantage that the united states of america has on national
security. no other nation. and we by this amendment today would agree to handcuff ourselves and our allies by restricting ourses? let it not be. let us not deal in false narratives. let us deal in facts that will keep the american people safe. when you look at an envelope, when an a letter is put in the mail is there a privacy right as to what's been written on that envelope? no, there isn't. where there is a privacy right is what's contained inside that envelope. that's a fourth amendment right. is there a fourth amendment right to the record that you called someone on a certain day? no, there isn't. that's a record. but there is a fourth amendment
right to what's in that phone call. let's deal in reality, not in false narratives. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. young: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i yield one minute to the
gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sensenbrenner: thank you, madam chairism rise in strong support of the amash amendment. i do so as the person who is the principal authort act in 20 that law through quickly after 9/11 and who supported and managed the 2006 re-authorization. let me make this perfectly clear that unlike what we've heard from speakers on the other side of this issue, this amendment does not stop the collection of data under
section 215. the people who are subject to an investigation of an authorized terrorist plot. what it does do is prevent the collection of people who are not subject to an investigation . now, relevance is required in any type of a grand jury subpoena or a criminal collection of data for a criminal trial. this goes far beyond that and
what the n.s.a. is doing. the time has come to stop it and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan -- mr. amash: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. polis: i thank the
gentleman from michigan for his leadership on this issue. reports of the n.s.a. surveillance program have broad and far-reaching consequences. many americans feel that our fundamental liberties are threatened, in addition, it has ruined our reputation abroad, threatening our work with scral lies and threatening our work abroad. the responsible thing to do is show some contrition. let's pass this amendment and make sure we can have a practical approach that shows that protecting our liberties and secures are consistent and critical for the united states of america. i y -- i urge a yes vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i reseven. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. yuck: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds to the the gentleman, mr.
mulvaney. mr. mulvaney: it's a question of balancing privacy and security. it's a question of who will do the balancing. right now the balancing is being done by people we do not know, people we do not elect. in large part right now by somebody who has admitted lying to this body in a hearing. that's wrong. we should be doing the balancing. we were elected to do that. we need to pass this amendment so that we can do the balancing, not folks that are not elected who we do not know. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: may i inquire how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lofgren: i want to talk about the much ballyhooed
oversight. every year there's a report to the judiciary committee, annual report on section 215. this year, the report was eight sentences, less than a full page. to think that the congress has substantial oversight of this program is simply incorrect. i cannot match mr. sensenbrenner's brilliant remarks but i do agree that when we wrote the
patriot act, relevance had a meaning and i would ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter to mr. sensen brener from the department of justice that basically says because 300 inquir requestries were made the records of every -- inquiries were made the records of every single american became relevant. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's unanimous consent request will be considered under general leave. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds
to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent
to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: this is not about how sincere the n.s.a. people are in implementing this technique. it is not about how careful they are. it is about whether they have the right to direct the data -- the right to collect the data in the first plates on every phone call on every american every day. the patriot act did not specifically authorize it, section 215 talks about tangible things that are relevant to an authorized security investigation. the n.s.a.'s interpretation of that relevant is all data, all the time. that is simply wrong. we should support the amash amendment and vote for it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. duncan: ealt four, the
quote quote quote
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, an effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but when probable cause -- but when proper warrant supported by proximate cause. those who trade freedom for security deserve neither. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: warrants need to be particular and specific about the maces to be serminged. no judge would sign a general search warrant like the british did, allowing police to search every house on the block much less seize everybody's phone records but this is what has happened under section 15 under the government. government's gone too far in the name of security that the fourth amendment has been
quote quote quote
bruised. rein in government invasion, no more dragnet operations, get a specific warrant based on proximate cause or stay out of our lives. and that's the way it is. he chair: the gentleman's time mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: this amendment stops the government from misusing section 215 to engage in the llection of all of our personal records. congress did not grant the executives to collect everything it wants. this amendment restores the requirement that are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation and ignored by successive administrations. no administration should be permitted to operate above or beyond the law as they have done this this respect. i urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the amash
quote quote quote
/conyers amendment. mr. amash: i yield 0 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith. mr. griffith: risk of assistance, that's what we are looking for and the founding founders -- we took an oath to uphold the constitution and rely agency that deals with a secret committee and members of congress are limited to their access to the actions of that committee and we are supposed to trust them. folks, we have a job to do. i yield back. i vote yes. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 45 seconds remaining and the gentleman from florida has two minutes remaining. mr. amash: i yield to the gentlelady from hawaii. >> countless men and women from
my state of hawaii and all across the country have worn the uniform and put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and our liberties. i cannot in good conscience to take a single dollar from the pockets of hard-working taxpayers from across the country to pay for programs which infringe on the very liberties and freedoms our troops have fought and died for. ben franklin who gave
up essential liberty to obtain a temporary little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we are here to answer one question for the people we represent. do we oppose the suspicionless collection of phone records. when you have the chance to stand up for america's privacy. did you? please support the amash amendment and oppose the blanket
does so despite all of the safeguards you have already heard. this program is constitutional under supreme court precedent. not recent precedent. it goes back to 1979, two years after i was born. this program is approved by large bipartisan majority of this body on the statute, text that they approved, not their secret or intent. it is overseen by article 3 judges that are confirmed by the senate and independent of the executive branch and reviewed by the intelligence committee and executed by military officers, not generals, but the majors and colonels who have been fighting and bleeding for this country for 12 years. 's nothing more than an xcel spreadsheet. five columns, billions of rows. it's in a locked box. it can't be searched unless you have specific suspicion of a
number being used by a terrorist. only then do they go into that data base and run a search for what that number has been calling. why do you need? verizon, at&t and other companies will not keep this data for the years necessary. and secondly, you need it quickly. when i was in iraq, if we rolled up a bad guy and found a cell guy or a thumb drive, we would upload that data so intelligence officials could search it because you only have a few terrorists. a folks, we are at war. you may not like that truth, but it is the truth. we are at war. do not take away this tool from our warriors. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
mr. amash: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. mr. conyers: may we have a recorded vote? the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the house report 113-170 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 24 by mr. terry of nebraska. amendment number 99 by mr. pompeo of kansas. amendment number 100 by mr. amash of michigan. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time after the first electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-170 offered by
the gentleman from mr. terry, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report number 13-170, offered by mr. terry of nebraska. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i request to withdraw my amendment, for a recorded vote on amendment number 24. the chair: the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 24 is withdrawn. and the amendment stands adopted in accordance with the previous voice vote thereon. the un mr. fincher: issued business is re-- the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo on which proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 99 printed in house report number 113-170. offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is aa, mr. visclosky, each
the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from florida, mr. young, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the entleman from florida. the gentleman from indiana is ecognized. mr. visclosky: i would rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, mr. heck. mr. heck: i thank the gentleman from indiana. in my ummer base, a base cadets from s rotc
across the nation. the chair: the house is not in order. the gentleman will suspend. exercisesthey conduct which is valuable in shaping our next generation of army officers. for 40 years, this has honed the skills and provided the cohesion and fostered the knowledge to create the army's next leaders. i have visited this program and you have no doubt about the quality of the next generation of military leaders in our nation. mr. chairman, an effort is afloat to radically change this proven system without the knowledge or input from this congress. members of this body, including myself, the ranking member of the house armed services committee, and the former ranking member of the house appropriations committee -- >> the house is not in order.
the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. members in the back are advise todd take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. heck: again, members of this body, including myself and ranking member of the house armed services committee and the former ranking member of the house appropriations committee have been requesting from the army a simple brief and cost benefit analysis of this proposed radical transformation and for over two years, for over two years those requests have been delayed, dismissed and denied. now while my preference would have been to offer a limiting amendment to this legislation, i ask the ranking member and the chair if in this instance we could work together to seek from the army a timely report so that congress and the relevant committees can do our job, which is to ensure proper oversight.
appreciate y: i appreciate the gentleman raising the issue and i would work with him to get the answers on this proposal. mr. heck: i thank the gentleman very much. mr. visclosky: i would use my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i want to take this time to thank someone i have a profound respect that we all do, bill young from florida to leading us to this point and i would ask that he be given a round of applause. i want to thank the members of the subcommittee and the staff and i would also want to thank four young people who have worked in our office this summer for all of their efforts on our ehalf, craig, morton, depa and matt. we did work our way through 100 amendments and from my perspective, this is how this
institution should work. to have issues in disagreement, to have discussions, to have votes and have a conclusion to the process and to report a bill. so again, i thank my colleagues, and i thank the chair and the colleagues i work with every day on the defense subcommittee. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i would like to use my time to say thank you to the house and all of the members who participated in some vigorous debates for having conducted the affairs of the house in a most professional way, proving to our constituents that we can work things out. that we can work together. and i just want to say thank you to the house and especially to
mr. visclosky, who is handling his minority leadership on this bill for the first time. and i think he deserves a lot of credit and a lot of applause for the good job that he did in track. this schedule on eter, thank you very much. while it seems a long time ago, it was only monday night that e finally received 100 amendments that would be filed and considered during the debate. we had to analyze those amendments by tuesday so that -- yesterday, so that we could begin the debate on this bill. our staff did an outstanding job in working late into the
night monday night, analyzing these amendments so that we can consider where we would be on those amendments. i'd like to read the names of the members of our staff. headed by tom mche mor as the staff direct -- mche mother as mclemore as the staff director, paul jolla in a similar position for peter visclosky, brook boyer, ann reese, megan rosenbush, tim prince, walter learn, b.g. right, paul terry, maureen hanihan, adrian ramsey and sara young. they are professional staff and it's hard to find any more
professional staff than those that i just mentioned. madam chairman thank you for conducting the wrap whereupon of -- wrapup of this bill and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. all time has expire the clerk will read. the clerk: this act may be cited as the department of defense appropriations act 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i move that the committee do now rise. and reminority bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopt. accordingly the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2397 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that this bill as amended be passed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2397 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted by the committee of the whole with a recommendation that the amendments be adopted and the bill as amended do pass. under house resolution 312, the previous question is ordered. a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk will read. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, an for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed nits current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies the clerk will reminority motion. he clerk: ms. frankle moves to recommit the -- to commit the bill back to the house we physical thoughlowing line 1, , page 26, insert the dollar amount, page 86, line two in-- after the
dollar amount insert increased by $20 million. page 97, line one, after the dollar amount insert increased biers 87 million. ms. frankel: this is a final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. adopted it will appropriate resources critical to national security and to defend israel, our most important ally in the he's. the motion to recommit adds $20 million for israel's iron dome defense program and $5 million for the defense program in order to bolster protection against short and long-range missile attacks. here's something we can all agree. defending israel is in the interest of our national security. the bond between the united states and israel is rooted in our shared -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house is not in order.
ms. frankel: thank you, madam speaker. the bond between the united states an israel is rooted in our shared national interest of our common values of democracy, rule of law, and basic human rights. israel's security is our security, the same forces threatening israel jeopardize the united states. and this is not a partisan issue. all of us who have been to israel are struck by how close israelis live to neighbors who want to destroy them. as a former mayor of a city, i ran a city where we had real problems like gangs and crime but never did i have to worry about the town next door shooting rockets a as my residents. i can't imagine what it would be like to be mayor there. in 2008, before we had iron dome, the surge in hamas rocket attacks from gaza forced israel
to launch a ground operation that tragically claimed 1,000 israeli and palestinian lives. fast forward. last november new york just one week, over 1,500 rocket wide receivers fired at israel again by terrorist groups in gaza. thankfully, this time, iron dome intercepted overle 0% of deadly attacks, preventing war and saving lives. i know that we can all agree that support for israel's missile defense program is not really a favor we do for israel. our political and military lead verse praised the strategic significance of israel's powerful military advancing our interests in the region, saving our nation billions of dollars on military personnel and equipment that we might otherwise be forced to deploy. looking at israel's neighborhood, never has this
situation been so urgent for both of our countries with increased threats from iran, hamas, hezbollah and al qaeda and instability in syria, egypt, and jordan. we must do all we can to strengthen israeli defenses and that is why this amendment to increase funding for these defense systems is so timely and so necessary. support for israel has always enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support so i urge my democratic and republican colleagues to come together on this important amendment to support israel and promote stability in the mideast. i thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker -- mr. young: i rise in opposition
to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: there's no doubt that iron dome is an extremely effective missile defense system and because of that, the committee fully funded this bill at $220 million. for iron dome. which is fully in line with the president's request and the recently passed defense authorization bill. additionally, this is the third year of a four-year commitment consecutive funding and the truth of the matter is, they really can't spend it any faster, any more effectively. so as is so often the case, motion is purely a political statement and i urge its rejection. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. frankel: i request a recorded volt. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote? ms. frankel: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is ordered. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause and clause 9 of rule 20 this vote will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill and approval of the journal if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with thenited states house of
reconsider is laid upon the table. pusuant to clause of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been instructed to inform the house the senate passed h.r. 911 to amend the higher education act of 1965 and for other purposes in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. junge --
mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h.r. 2397, including crecks in spell, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents, and short titles and the insertion of appropriation headings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to all members may have five sledge -- five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 2397. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the
gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, during the final vote series last night i inadvertently voted no on the delauro amendment number 44. mr. butterfield: that would prohibit funds to train the afghan special interest wing. i would like to say i support the amendment offered by ms. delauro and had i voted correctly i would have voted for the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will be made part of the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove o-sponsors from my bill. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman asking for all co-sponsors sob removed? >> no, just two. the speaker pro tempore: to will the gentleman state which two. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: the president said today it's time for the house to lay out our ideas to give the middle class a better shot he said it's time to move past stale debates. the only reason these debates are stale is because the house bills have been passed to create jobs in america are stalled in the senate and by the president. this isn't difficult. we need to cut burdensome regulations and stop job creation. the president needs to agree to build the keystone pipeline. the president needs to agree to exemployer for american energy to lower the price of gas and diesel.
the president needs agree to permanently delay all of obamacare. america deserves an economic recovery. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my rashes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. let me commend congressman schiff and the 185 members who voted today to restrict the authorization for the use of military force. today's vote is a very important step in our effort to repeal this overly broad blank check to wage war anywhere, at any time, and for any length which of course i could not vote for september 14, 2001. i have a bipartisan bill which would repeal the authorization to use military force and doing so would provide congress an opportunity, finally, a long overdue opportunity to have a
meaningful debate about our constitutional role in declaring war. last year, last week, excuse me, i released a public report if the congressional research service citing 30 instances where this resolution has been invoked. most americans and of course my colleagues in congress would be surprised to know these activities include deploying troops in ethiopia, djibouti, the philippines so malia and i could go on and on. it also justifies conditions at guantanamo bay and warrantless searches. i ask unanimous consent to insert this record into -- this into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: it's time to repeal this authorization and rein in the overly broad and deeply troubling n.s.a. spige program. i urge mu all member tots join our continuing efforts and retain r my bill to
the n.i.f. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my prarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to mark an been rsary that has marked by the sip reyacht community for years. mr. bilirakis: turkey violently invaded cyprus and captured the northern part of the rled island. since then, turkey has established a heavily armed military occupation that continues to control 40% of cyprus and forced 150,000 greek sip reyachts from their homes. it is not impossible to conceive a unified cyprus that respects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all sip reyachts. cyprus has listening been a
strong and faithful ally of the united states and we owe our support for both peace and the end of this illegal occupation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. and they're off that traditional refrain as horses come out the gate ushered in another saratoga season just days ago. this time a very special season. i recognize saratoga racecourse as it celebrates 150 years thor rogue bred racing in saratoga springs, new york. a son of irish immigrants staged the first horse race at what is now known as the
oklahoma track, giving birth to the oldest sporting venue in the united states. notable sports writer red smith once said of saratoga, from new york you drive north 175 mile, turn left on union avenue, and go back 100 years. racing at saratoga produces 150 job and an economic boost of $200 million to the surrounding' re-each year. i'm honored to recognize 150 years tradition and community spirit that come to light in a most unique and exciting way that have a special place in our american story. let me close, mr. speaker, the following way, and down the stretch they come. happy 150th, saratoga. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one
minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in the memory of beatris ar embings dondo, a woman who embodied the spirit of love and compassion. she passed away june 28, 2013. she was born on january 16, 1943, in mexico. at a very young age she knew she wanted to be a loving wife and mother and dreamed of one day seing her grandchildren. she accomplished those goals magnificently. mr. vargas: 54 years ago, she met ernesto arredondo senior and they were married 46 years. they have four beautiful children, ernesto jr., eduardo, and elizabeth.
beatriz is survived by her husband, her children and 10 grandchildren. as ised said in st. paul's second letter to timothy, she fought the good fight. the she finished the race. she kept the faith. she is now in god's arms. our prayers are with her family. with this, mr. speaker, i yield ack. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. barletta of pennsylvania for today and tomorrow and mr. horseford of nevada for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced spoifl january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr.
gingrey is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you. 'm joined this evening with my colleagues on the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus and other republican members to talk about this most, most important subject and that's this recent delay of the employer mandate. the obama administration's announcement that it will delay implementation of the employer mandate due to the enormous regulatory burden on businesses, mr. speaker, is proof positive that the affordable care act is a job killer. the administration's excuse for delay was to simplify reporting requirements to small businesses but employers haven't been against the
mandate solely due to its burdensome reporting requirements. while it's estimated that obamacare will require american job creators, family, and health care providers to spend more than $127 -- more than 127 million hours a year on compliance with the law a far greater concern to business owners is the impact the mandate will have on job creation. the cost of the health insurance and obamacare's fines will drive up the cost of labor and will continue to be a drag on this economy. this is further evidence that the administration does not get how the law will impact the economy. the u.s. chamber reported that 72%, 72% of small business executives would have a harder time hiring because of the o because macare.
the employer mandate has been called a major obstacle to expansion. they simply cannot afford it. at a recent small business round table, one georgia business owner said to me, i want to provide health care insurance for my employees. obamacare has forced me to choose between that and hiring new people. for instance, one common deterrent to growth that is often cited by small businesses is the 50-employee threshold. where a business must provide insurance to its employees once the 50th full-time employee is hired. this misguided provision has repeatedly forced different hiring practices by these companies. i heard that heatco, a company which specializes in the design and manufacturing of world-class heating solutions and located in my district, had looked into
expanding. the thing is, they currently have, you guessed it, mr. speaker, 49 employees, and to expand by adding an additional employee will cost more than automating some of their processes due to the added obamacare cost. the administration cannot say with a straight face that businesses were more concerned with reporting requirements rather than the overbearing cost that obamacare will add to their bottom line. president obama's announcement doesn't reduce the harmful effects that the mandate will have on employers as we move forward. it could, however, provide cover -- let me repeat that, it could, however, provide cover for democrats during an election year. this political calculation protects them from voter backlash and from the reality that obamacare, their law, is to
blame for an economy literally hemorrhaging jobs. this is yet another example of the obama administration replacing the rule of law with partisan raw politics. this unilateral decision is an abuse of executive power and in my opinion a clear demonstration president obama will disregard the very laws he signs for political gain. in 2010 democrats in congress determined enforcement of their egregious moyer mandate would begin on -- employer mandate would begin on january 1, 2014. as bad as the law may be, the administration does not have the power to rewrite the law. that responsibility belongs where? right here in congress. just look at your constitution. which i keep in my pocket swrrks deep inside my pocket, but i guarantee you it's in here because i put it in here every
single day. legalities aside, postponing the mandate for one year is not enough. it simply delays the inevitable. when it's eventually enacted, mr. speaker, ours -- hours will still be cut and pay will still be reduced. businesses hovering just under the 50-employee threshold will still have to waive the cost of expansion and because of the requirement, many will be unable to grow. it is just further proof that the administration does not understand how business works. the lack of response from this administration is also increasingly frustrating. house republicans have held numerous hearings asking for more information as to how this decision was reached. we have sent letters to the secretary of the treasury, we have sent letters to the secretary of health and human services, we have asked witnesses to gain a better insight of this ruling but have
continuously been rebuffed. in other words, no response to our request. it's offensive to the american people that the administration cannot offer clear guidance, clear guidance on a central piece of their obamacare fiasco. mr. speaker, this delay will also effect verification of individuals in this insurance exchange. it's amazing that the administration is suggesting that we will rely on the honor system to determine federal payment. this is truly outrageous. according to the law, you aren't eligible for obamacare subsidies if your employer has offered you what the government considers affordable coverage. spelled out clearly in the law. well, with the delay of the employer mandate, however, the government won't be able to verify whether the individual has been offered coverage. and this will open the door,
wide open, for enormous fraud and abuse and the cost will skyrocket. we've seen the same thing in other entitlement programs that rely on this so-called honor system. it's clear that what we are seeing is a tactic of subsidized -- subsidize first, ask questions later. remember the old phrase, pay and chase on medicare claims? it is the administration's goal to enroll as many people in obamacare and these exchanges as they can and as soon as they i.e. e., this year -- this year, of delay, so the federal takeover of 1/6 of the economy, mr. speaker, raises taxes on small business owners and middle class families. it guts medicare, seniors, it guts medicare, and will irreparably harm the doctor-patient relationship.
instead we need state-based reforms that will lower costs, give patients more control of their own health insurance policies, increase access and ensure a higher standard of care. with that, mr. speaker, i want to yield to my colleagues, the gentleman from maryland, dr. harris, anesthesiologist by profession before congress, and i yield to the gentleman from maryland. mr. harris: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding. and the doctor's absolutely right. that employer mandate will increase the cost to -- for employers which means we're going to get less job creation and less job growth in an economy that can't do with any less job creation. in fact, as the doctor probably knows, since january, virtually all the jobs created in this country, because of this mandate
, have been part-time jobs. we're rapidly converting to a part-time economy. that's not what americans expect , that's not what americans deserve and that's -- and that problem won't be solved until that mandate goes away. not just delayed, but goes away. but the doctor talked about the costs per employee when the employee pays. the doctor didn't mention the cost if you go on the individual market. because that's the other market created under the president's affordable care act or obamacare. you've heard much in the past week because the president has gone around, mr. speaker, saying, pointing to new york and saying, see? premiums are going to go down 50%. the wonders of obamacare. well, mr. speaker, the truth is the president can only talk about new york because in virtually every other state there will be huge increases
and, mr. speaker, we have to examine why the decrease in new york is 50%. it's because they start with such a high premium that even at still e cost they're multiples of the premiums of other states. let's take a look at what the average premium in new york right now is for a healthy 30-year-old, nonsmoker, buying a policy. because, mr. speaker, the president and the secretary of h.h.s. and everyone who has schemed this plan has said, unless you get healthy young people to buy insurance, the whole plan falls apart. so let's look at what it will cost that 30-year-old nonsmoking male, the people who are among the highest of the uninsured, the highest in number, what it will cost them. in new york right now it costs -- now, mr. speaker, this is the average plan, the median priced plan in new york is $5,750 a
year or about $500 a month right now. now, that median price plan in the president's home state of llinois is $1,450 or about $1,300 a month, about 1/4 the price of the new york policy because, mr. speaker, new york has obamacare-type regulations in place. that's why their costs are so high right now. in fact, obamacare is not quite as regulated as the new york market, so the prices can come down a little bit. but you know, if it comes down from $500 to $250, it's still twice the cost of that policy in illinois right now. or maybe we should look at the vice president's state of delaware. where the average 30-year-old male's policy price is about $1,380 or let's rounds up to $1,200 a month. that's about 1/4 the price of the current policy in new york
and even with those tremendous obamacare savings will be half the price of the policy in new york. the obamacare policy. now, in my state of maryland, let's look at what some other states other than new york, what's happened. i'll talk about my home state of maryland. the largest nonprofit insurer, yes, mr. speaker, i said the nonprofit insurer, because you can't blame profit as the reason for a high cost. the largest nonprofit insurer said that the average price increase is 25% and for a young healthy person, exactly the ones that have to be signed up for the obamacare scheme to work, is at highest 150% increase. 150% increase. mr. speaker, we can't get healthy young people to buy insurance now, how in the world are we going to convince them to buy insurance in maryland when
it costs almost twice as much? we can run all the taxpayer -financed ads, because that's what it's going to be, all the people watching will have a television, will see what happens this fall as we spend millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to try to convince healthy young people to buy a plan that's way too overpriced. but let's look at california. let's say, well, maybe the big states are different. maybe california's different. well, mr. speaker, in california the average cost of that plan for the healthy young person is $2,200 or about $200 a month. why, it's less than half of the cost in new york and sure enough , in figures released last month in california, the cost of the obamacare individual plans will 146%.se by 64% to
64% to 146%. so that $200 a month premium is now going to be $400 a month. well, mr. speaker, young people who are entering the job market are entering at low levels, relatively low levels of pay. where in the world are they going to find $400 to pay for an overpriced plan that they've seen advertised on their local nba game, of course the ad's paid for with taxpayer dollars. mr. speaker, this is why this house of cards will collapse. we are in for a rough time this fall. america and people in america who depend on their health care insurance are in for a really rough time. the costs are going to go up, the confusion will be immense and, mr. speaker, americans deserve better. so that's why we have called on the president, forget a one-year
delay of the mandate on employers only, we need a permanent delay on the entire plan and the time for it is now. the president today made a big .eal in his pivot to jobs mr. president, i would suggest, stop the $100 million trips to africa and go talk to some of our small business employers and ask them what's their concern. how will they create jobs, and they will tell you, they will tell you, this is what they would tell the president, mr. speaker, they would tell the president, get rid of that obamacare. that's a weight hanging over my business' head that i can't afford, i can't predict and it's stopping me from hiring people and the people i have now, it's making me shift them to part-time jobs. so i'll come full circle, mr. speaker.
if what we want is a part-time economy, let's barrel ahead with obamacare. america deserves much better than america deserves much better. we deserve to create good-paying full-time jobs by the small businesses in this country that are waiting to show economic growth. e have got to remove this lead weight. i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding the time. and i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. before i yield to the gentleman from kentucky, i want you to look at this first poster, because a lot of what the gentleman from maryland, mr. speaker, was speaking about in regard to costs, shows it pretty simply here. and the change in the costs per employee, bec